Donald Hirsch, Liz Sutton and Jacqueline Beckhelling September 2012

Transcription

Donald Hirsch, Liz Sutton
and Jacqueline Beckhelling
September 2012
The cost of
a child in the
twenty-first
century
Donald Hirsch, Liz Sutton
and Jacqueline Beckhelling
September 2012
CPAG promotes action for the prevention and relief of poverty among
children and families with children. To achieve this, CPAG aims to raise
awareness of the causes, extent, nature and impact of poverty, and
strategies for its eradication and prevention; bring about positive policy
changes for families with children in poverty; and enable those eligible for
income maintenance to have access to their full entitlement. If you are not
already supporting us, please consider making a donation, or ask for details
of our membership schemes, training courses and publications.
Published by CPAG
94 White Lion Street
London N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7837 7979
[email protected]
www.cpag.org.uk
© Child Poverty Action Group 2012
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade
or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the
publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in
which it is published and without a similar condition including this
condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
Child Poverty Action Group is a charity registered in England and Wales
(registration number 294841) and in Scotland (registration number
SC039339), and is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
(registration number 1993854). VAT number: 690 808117
Design by Devious Designs 0114 275 5634
Cover photo by John Harris/reportdigital.co.uk
Printed by Calverts Press 020 7739 1474
Manor and Castle health needs assessment report
About the authors
Donald Hirsch is Director of the Centre for Research in Social Policy,
where he leads the Minimum Income Standard for the UK programme.
A former journalist and writing and research consultant, he has written
widely on poverty and related fields. From 1998 to 2008 he was
Poverty Adviser to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, where he wrote a
number of major reports on child poverty, welfare reform, long-term
care and the situation of older workers.
Liz Sutton was Research Associate and later Senior Research Associate
at the Centre for Research in Social Policy from 2001 to 2012. Her
research was focused on the living standards and lifestyles of a range
of vulnerable groups, and on children’s perspectives of their own lives
and of social difference.
Jacqueline Beckhelling was Research Associate at the Centre for
Research in Social Policy from 2004 to 2012. Her background is in
statistics and operational research, and she has considerable experience
of working with large and complex datasets using a wide range of
statistical techniques.
Acknowledgements
The authors like to thank the Child Poverty Action Group and the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, both for their financial support for this
project and for advice and guidance throughout – particularly from
Alison Garnham, Lindsay Judge and Chris Goulden. We also received
helpful advice from others attending our advisory group meetings:
Jonathan Bradshaw, Rowan Davies, John Dickie, Tom MacInnes, Jill
Rutter and David Piachaud. Abigail Davis made valuable contributions
to the research. Thanks too to Alison Key for editing this report and to
Kathleen Armstrong for proofreading the text.
This report was jointly funded by the Child Poverty Action Group and
the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Contents
Foreword
6
Executive summary and scorecard
7
One
Approaches to the cost of children
11
Two
Measuring the cost of a child:
methods used to date
13
Three
What children need: contributors
to the cost of a child
21
Four
How parents view family spending
requirements: new evidence
29
Five
The cost of a child in 2012
40
Six
The state’s contribution to the
additional cost of children
45
Seven
Change over time
50
Eight
Conclusions
52
Appendix One
The main calculations
53
Appendix Two
Equivalisation and poverty rates
55
Foreword
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Child Poverty Action Group
are very happy to have worked together to jointly fund this report.
The partnership arose from a common desire to show how much it
costs to raise a child, based on what parents themselves agree to be an
acceptable minimum standard of living in the UK today. This analysis
shows for the first time and in a robust way how much it costs to
provide children with a minimum level of participation in society, as
well as catering for their needs in terms of food, clothes and shelter.
A particularly big issue is the cost of childcare over a child’s life,
making the lives of working parents a real struggle.
It means we can also compare the cost of a child with the child-related
benefits that parents receive and can see that, for most families, they
fall short. Inevitably, this means that parents have to make sacrifices in
their own standards of living to protect their children’s livelihoods. We
hope that this research provides a basis for policy development and
for wider debate about the cost of raising children and who should be
responsible. We know that many children – and their parents – are
going without the things they need and this has to be addressed.
Alison Garnham, Child Poverty Action Group
Chris Goulden, Joseph Rowntree Foundation
6 Foreword
The cost of a child in the twenty-first century
Executive summary
and scorecard
At a time when many families are finding it hard to make ends meet,
how much does it cost to bring up a child? This question is of interest
to prospective parents and to policy makers who wish to ensure that
children are not disadvantaged by growing up in families without the
means to support them at an adequate level.
It is not easy to measure the cost of a child, and different studies have
taken different approaches. Some have looked at what families actually
do spend, which helps show social norms, but to a large extent is
determined by what families can afford rather than by what children
need. Others have tried to make scientific calculations of how much
families of different structure require in order to reach an equivalent
living standard. These studies have tended to be rather abstract. Another
approach, which has been developed over the past two decades, is to
look at what families actually need for a minimum acceptable standard
of living, and how children influence that amount. Detailed and regular
research on a minimum income standard now makes it possible for
this method to be applied systematically to calculating the cost of a
child, and it is the approach taken by this report.
Before making a specific calculation, however, a wide range of
evidence on children’s costs can be brought together to help
understand what determines the cost of a child today, and why it
matters that children’s minimum needs are met. This project considered
this evidence in combination with new research asking groups of
parents about how having children affects family costs. It found that:
◆
There is broad consensus that children’s needs today comprise not
just an adequate diet and the physical necessities of life, but also
the ability to participate in society – for example, by going to
birthday parties, taking part in after-school activities and having a
modest annual holiday with their families.
◆
Not being able to afford these things can have serious
consequences for children. Research evidence shows how material
hardship and social exclusion can be associated with damage to
children’s physical health, to their self-esteem and to their longterm development.
◆
In today’s harsh economic times, there is some acceptance that
certain needs can be met more thriftily, but most requirements
remain unchanged. In addition, a decline in public transport
options has contributed to a consensus that it is untenable for
households with children to manage without a car. This introduces
a substantial additional expense to the costs of a child.
◆
Children do not simply bring additional costs to families, they also
change the ways in which families live. For example, adults do not
Executive summary and scorecard 7
expect to socialise in the same way before and after they become
parents, and this can partially offset some of the additional costs of
children. However, this change in patterns of need has to be
distinguished from parental sacrifice, where adults on limited
incomes severely neglect their own needs in order to meet those of
their children. Parents generally prioritise their children’s needs,
and this means that any unaffordable costs of bringing up a child
can be met partly through the hardship faced by parents.
◆
In larger families, there are some economies of scale that make
each additional child somewhat cheaper, but this relationship is not
straightforward. There are some things that larger, but not smaller,
families need for a minimum standard of living, such as a tumble
dryer and a larger car.
Using the minimum income standard research for 2012, a calculation
of the cost of children considers how much the addition of each child
increases a family’s budget. On average, the first child in a couple costs
£89 a week and the second child £81 a week, not including housing
and childcare costs. The basic cost of bringing up each child from birth
to age 18 is estimated at between £73,000 and £94,000, but for working
families who require childcare, the total cost is between £110,000 and
£160,000. Many children’s costs, such as food, clothing and social
participation, tend to rise with age, but this is counterbalanced by the
cost of childcare, which is greater the younger the child.
State benefits provide 73 to 94 per cent of these children’s costs to
non-working families. However, given the inadequacy of adult
benefits, which are currently set at well under half of what adults
need, benefits overall provide only about 50 to 60 per cent of what a
whole family with children requires.
For some working lone-parent families on very low incomes,
additional in-work benefits and tax credits can provide the full extra
net cost of a child. However, this does not include childcare costs, and
families on such low incomes are generally still short of what they
need for an adequate living standard (see the scorecard on page 9).
As they raise their earnings, the benefits fall away quickly.
Over the past 15 years, there has been a substantial increase in the
real value of benefits for children. However, in the past four years,
such increases have not kept pace with the actual rise in the minimum
cost of children. Families in work have been particularly hit by
increases in childcare costs and by reductions in tax credit support.
For families on middle to higher incomes, state support for the cost of
a child has reduced significantly and, from 2013, some higher earners
will receive nothing once their child benefit is withdrawn – the first
time since 1946 that there will be no universal payment to families
with children.
To monitor the cost of children and the support given by government
to support this, the following scorecard gives a simple set of indicators,
to be updated annually.
8 Executive summary and scorecard
Scorecard
Scorecard: cost of a child in 2012
A. How much extra a child adds to
family costs, and how much benefits
contribute to this
Minimum additional cost of a child
(averaged for first and second child)
Couple
Lone parent
1. Basic cost* over 18 years
0£79,742
0£88,330
2. Cost over 18 years, including childcare
£142,680
£155,015
3. Percentage of basic cost covered by child benefit
20%
18%
4. Percentage of basic cost covered by child benefit
plus maximum child tax credit
87%
78%
B. The extent to which families have
enough to cover the minimum cost
of living
Net income* as a percentage of
minimum family costs (family with
two children aged 3 and 7)
Couple
Lone parent
5. Not working
60%
63%
6. Working full time on the national minimum wage
82%
89%
7. Working full time on the median wage
109%
93%
* Net of rent, childcare and council tax
Interpretation of the scorecard and what it will
monitor over time
◆
Indicators 1 and 2 are indicators of the cost of raising a child. As
these evolve over time, it will be possible to see how this overall
cost is changing, relative to general prices and to earnings. It will
also be possible to see how important childcare is in the
additional cost of a child. Currently it represents over 40 per cent
of the cost for families requiring full-time cover (although families
on low incomes can get up to 70 per cent of these costs covered
by tax credits). We have assumed that children under 14 who are
not at school or nursery need looking after when their parents
are working. In practice, families’ childcare requirements vary, but
this benchmark gives a basis for monitoring the relative size of
childcare costs over time.
◆
Indicators 3 and 4 show how much of the additional costs of a
child, not including childcare, are covered by benefits. Child
benefit (Indicator 3) represents a contribution to these costs for
all families (except those earning over £60,000 a year from 2013),
and this is only one-fifth of costs, even before childcare is
considered. Monitoring this proportion will tell us whether this
general contribution to the cost of children is being maintained
or allowed to dwindle. Child benefit combined with child tax
credit (Indicator 4) represents the contribution that the state
makes to the additional cost of a child for families with no, or very
low, earnings. At present, the state provides for most, but not all, of
the minimum additional cost of a child, meaning that in order to
bring up their children at a socially acceptable level, parents may
have to find money out of their own very inadequate benefits –- a
big sacrifice. The movement of this percentage will be a crucial
Executive summary and scorecard 9
indicator of the extent to which the state is willing to cover the
basic cost of children in families who have the least.
◆
Indicators 5 to 7 consider incomes relative to costs from a
somewhat different angle. They show the overall adequacy of
family income (rather than just additional children’s costs) once
payments for any childcare and rent, and the amount that the
government gives to help pay for these things, have been
subtracted. They tell us what families who do not work, who
work on the minimum wage or who have medium wages are left
with to pay weekly expenses, relative to what they need. They
show clearly that at the whole family level, out-of-work benefits
fall far short of what is needed for a minimum acceptable
standard of living. Families working full time on the minimum
wage also fall significantly short of meeting needs, although the
tax credit system ensures that they have most of their
requirements, and much more than those who do not work. For
those working on medium earnings, the situation differs for lone
parents and for couples. The former still do not have quite
enough, because as their income rises, their in-work benefits fall
sharply. For couples with two incomes, the fall is not quite as
steep, and this allows a family to make ends meet on median
earnings. Monitoring these figures will show the extent to which
the whole family income of these three types of family becomes
more or less adequate over time.
One feature that is not fully captured by these headline figures is the
cost of housing. The total figure shown in Indicator 2 does include
some small additions in rent due to the larger homes needed to
accommodate children, but these calculations are based on social
housing, where rent variations with property size are relatively minor.
For those renting in the private sector, on the other hand, an
additional room even in modestly priced accommodation can add
approximately £25,000 to the lifetime cost of a child. This is potentially
covered, at least in part, by housing benefit for people on low
incomes, but restrictions on eligible rent levels have reduced this help
for many families.
In conclusion, the cost of children is a particularly important issue
today for a number of reasons. In recent years, considerable public
resources have been allocated to helping families on low incomes, but
the scale of this help as a strategy to alleviate poverty has been called
into question. As a new welfare system is introduced, it is important to
be clear about what families need to meet minimum needs, as well as
the potential hardship that may ensue if they fail to do so. This is
particularly the case because the measured cost of a child has been
rising in recent years, partly because of specific inflationary pressures
on certain costs and partly because of changes in what items families
need. Annual reporting on the cost of a child and on government help
in meeting this cost will show the extent to which families are able to
keep up in this changing situation.
10 Executive summary and scorecard
One
Approaches to the cost
of children
How much does it cost to bring up a child in the UK today? A child is
not a commodity, and having children cannot be reduced to an
economic act. Yet at a time when many households are finding it hard
to make ends meet, there are several reasons to explore the financial
cost of children. Anyone thinking of starting a family will have a close
interest in what this will mean for their household budget. Families
trying to plan their finances over long periods where costs change
may want to know what lies ahead. And when families with children
fall on hard times, adequate social protection needs to be based on
some estimate of what it costs to provide children with the necessities
of life.
There have been various attempts over the years to estimate the cost
of children. Some studies have asked how much families actually
spend on children’s items. These help illustrate the expenses that
families incur, but given that spending is constrained by available
resources, do not accurately measure how much more families need to
spend as a result of having children. Some economic analysis has
attempted to use observation of spending patterns to estimate how
much more a family needs to spend to reach a given level of
wellbeing as a result of having children. This produces interesting but
inconclusive results. A third strand of work looks at what children
need and how providing these things affects a family’s budget. This
research can show the extra cost of maintaining a minimum living
standard, although not of maintaining an average living standard, as a
result of having children.
The cost of an individual child is hard to distinguish from the general
costs of family life. Many things that families spend money on are
consumed collectively and, even where they are not, the overall
wellbeing of a family interacts with that of its individual members. A
further complication of measuring children’s costs, therefore, is that
children’s welfare is affected by more than just what is bought for
them directly.
Against this background, recent developments in research have greatly
improved our tools for understanding the cost of a child. In the 1980s
and 1990s, various studies looked at how the public defined
necessities for children and at items that might go into family budgets.
This led to several estimates of the cost of a child. Since 2008, new
research on a minimum income standard for the UK has been
estimating what different types of family need in order to reach a
minimum acceptable standard of living, as defined by the general
public. This combines, for the first time, a method based on public
consensus with a set of budgets for whole families. This research is
being regularly updated, with new research every two years and
annual inflation updates.
Approaches to the cost of children 11
This report draws on available research to explore influences on the
cost of a child in 2012, and uses a minimum income standard to
estimate the annual and lifetime cost of bringing up a child in the UK.
Chapter 2 reviews methods that have been used to date to measure
the cost of a child. Chapter 3 considers existing evidence about the
nature of children’s needs that influence their essential costs. Chapter
4 probes further into the influences on the actual costs faced by
different families, drawing on new research on how family
composition influences family spending and minimum costs. Chapter 5
makes the main calculations for this report, looking at how much each
additional child adds to a family’s essential costs. Chapter 6 compares
this to how much the state gives to families to contribute to the cost
of bringing up children. Chapter 7 looks briefly at how costs are
changing over time. Chapter 8 draws conclusions.
12 Approaches to the cost of children
Two
Measuring the cost of
a child: methods used
to date
Measurement of the cost of having children has ranged from highly
complex and abstract economic analysis to highly simplistic lists of
items that families are likely to spend on their children. The variety of
methods and answers reflects the fact that the question ‘how much does
it cost to have children?’ can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Three
strands of work can be distinguished by different forms of question:
◆
How much do families spend on their children? This question has
led to research on spending levels.
◆
How much extra would families in general need to spend in order
to maintain an equivalent level of wellbeing after having children as
before? This question has led to economic analysis on equivalisation.
◆
How much do families with children need to spend in order to
maintain a minimum acceptable living standard, compared to families
without children? This question has led to research on needs.
The following short review gives examples of studies shedding light
on these three questions. It is not a comprehensive survey of the
research, but rather gives an overview of how different studies have
approached the issue from varying perspectives.
Spending studies
Conceptually the simplest, and most direct, way of looking at the cost
of children involves measuring how much families spend on
‘children’s’ items. The most systematic attempt to enumerate such
spending in recent years was the Small Fortunes survey, carried out by
the Centre for Research in Social Policy for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation in 1997.1 This survey considered what families spend, on
average, on items for children that need to be bought regularly (at
least once a year). It did this by interviewing parents, by asking them
to make inventories of children’s possessions and by asking them to
keep spending diaries. The survey estimated that approximately
£50,000 is spent on a child from birth to age 17.
A more recent series of data is a calculation, produced in 2003 and
uprated annually with inflation, of how much families spend on
average on a range of children’s items, carried out by the Centre for
Economics and Business Research (CEBR) for Liverpool Victoria. This
was based on a compilation of different pieces of survey evidence,
including Office for National Statistics Family Expenditure Survey data
on toys, leisure, recreation and toiletries, Mothercare estimates of the
Measuring the cost of a child 13
cost of baby items, Abbey National research on school costs and
Morgan Stanley research on the cost of holidays. This study estimated
the cost of a child to age 21 to be £140,398 in 2003. Even accounting
for inflation between the two surveys and for the longer period of
childhood covered, this study comes to a much higher estimate of the
cost of a child than Small Fortunes – over twice as high per year of
childhood covered, adjusted by the Consumer Prices Index.
Much of this difference could be attributed to the fact that the CEBR
study combines evidence from various surveys and methods in a way
unlikely to produce an accurate or consistent estimate of how much
any one family spends on children’s items across the board. However,
the Small Fortunes survey, while more systematic because it was based
on looking at what a sample of real families spent in the round, was
also an incomplete account of what children cost. It did not report on
items replaced less than once a year, such as items of furniture, nor
did it have a way of counting spending on shared family items.
There will always be a considerable level of discretion in identifying
what is a ‘child’s’ part of observed family spending, making it
inherently problematic to produce a complete and robust estimate of
the average cost of children. This is not in itself an argument against
such surveys. However, their results must be interpreted with some
care. They can provide useful illustrations of the costs attached to
items that families typically buy for their children. However, this
should not be taken as a direct measure of ‘the cost of a child’, for
two reasons.
First of all, in reality the direct cost of children’s items is not the same
as the difference between what it costs to live with children and
without children. This is partly because family patterns change with
the arrival of children: parents do not live identical lifestyles to nonparents. And it is partly because family costs are shared in complex
ways. If, for example, families with children typically have larger
dining tables than those without children, the cost of a child should
include the difference between the cost of a large and a small table.
Spending surveys could never fully capture such differences. Even if
they enumerated everything that families bought in great detail, they
would not show clearly which items a family possessed because of the
presence of children.
One alternative might be to measure average spending on children
overall by observing the difference between spending in families with
and in those without children. However, as pointed out by the Small
Fortunes report, such a comparison would also be highly problematic,
because it would not tell you who in the family benefited from such
spending. Indeed, the Small Fortunes survey also showed that many
parents make huge sacrifices in terms of spending less on themselves
to ensure that children’s needs are met. Therefore, a ‘difference’
calculation would greatly underestimate the true cost of children to
parents in terms of children’s impact on the resources that adults have
available to meet their own needs.
14 Measuring the cost of a child
The second, closely related, reason to interpret spending surveys with
caution is that actual expenditure is constrained by a family’s financial
resources. When children arrive in a family, spending on them will be
heavily influenced by what the family can afford. Some additional
resources may become available, including from children’s benefits
and from additional borrowing or use of savings, but this may also be
offset by reduced earnings of a parent spending time as a carer. To
say that the amount that a family finds to spend on children represents
their ‘cost’ is rather circular. It takes account neither of the extent to
which some families are unable fully to meet a child’s needs, nor of
the fact that a rich family may lavish spending on its offspring because
it can afford to rather than because this is inherently part of the
required cost of supporting the child.
Equivalisation studies
If actual spending on children is largely influenced by what families
can afford, is there any way of considering the additional cost of
maintaining a given standard of living after adding the cost of a child
to a family? Various economic studies have tried to tackle this issue
through the concept of ‘equivalisation’. This is the process of estimating
what incomes different types of household need in order to achieve
an equivalent living standard – for example, how much more a couple
with two children needs than a single person to produce a similar
level of welfare.
Since there is no direct way of measuring the welfare level achieved by
spending a given amount of money in a given household type, these
economic studies rely on proxy measures as indicators of welfare levels.
In particular, they take the pattern of a household’s spending between
different categories of goods and services as an indicator of its welfare
level. We can observe that a family of a given type will tend to spend
proportionately more on certain categories (such as food) if its income
is low. Therefore, spending relatively large shares of income on these
categories can be taken as a proxy for having a relatively low standard
of living. A household with children would be expected to spend a
higher proportion of income on food and other necessities than a
household on the same income but without children – since the
higher costs faced by the family with children would leave less money
for discretionary spending on non-necessities. Thus, on similar
incomes, the living standard of the family with children is lower. To
estimate the extra cost of achieving an ‘equivalent’ living standard with
the addition of children to a family, one can look for the difference in
income between families with and without children who have similar
patterns of spending and therefore similar presumed welfare. For
example, if families with children on income Y tend to spend the
same proportion of income on food and other essentials as families
without children who have annual incomes of Y minus £5,000, we
would estimate that the average cost of children is £5,000 a year.
Such a principle has been the basis of complex analyses of spending
patterns, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. The most influential study
in the UK, carried out by McClements,2 was the basis for the
‘equivalisation scales’ used for making official estimates of household
poverty until being replaced by (more arbitrary) OECD scales in 2003.
Estimates of the cost of a child based on this type of analysis has
suffered from a number of drawbacks and limitations, enumerated
thoroughly in a review of such studies by Banks and Johnson.3 In
particular:
◆
The use of a single indicator, such as percentage of income spent on
food, as an estimate for a living standard is a highly crude way of
measuring equivalence, and is sensitive to which indicator is used.
◆
Attempts to model whole family budgets this way are also
problematic, because evidence from different parts of the budget
can point in different directions and, in practice, the result is
sensitive to various prior assumptions that are fed into the model.
◆
The resulting ‘cost’ of having children relies on a rather abstract
concept of the same income being able to purchase a lower level
of household welfare, rather than on an account of the different
things that people buy in different families in order to reach this
welfare level. While such an estimate gives a method for adjusting
the value of incomes according to household size that is not entirely
arbitrary, detailed attempts to find appropriate equivalisation
weightings have come up with varying answers according to the
specification of the model rather than a robust or consistent basis
for this calculation. ‘The construction of an ideal equivalence scale,’
conclude Banks and Johnson, ‘is likely to defeat the ingenuity of
economists.’ 4
Studies of necessities and minimum spending
A third area of study concerns how much extra a household needs to
spend on children in order to have a minimum acceptable standard of
living. This issue is different from the previous two in that it does not
seek to establish the general impact of children on living standards or
living costs, but rather seeks to consider the cost of bringing up a
child at a minimum acceptable level. This is of interest first and
foremost in relation to the ability of families on limited means to make
ends meet, and to ensure that their children are not deprived. However,
it is also of more general interest, since it gives an indication to all
families of the minimum cost of bringing up a child.
Several types of research have contributed to our understanding of the
cost of providing a child with an acceptable standard of living.
Deprivation studies ask members of the public about the items they
consider children should not have to do without because their families
cannot afford them. They do not show the overall cost of bringing up
a child, but help inform the basis for doing so by distinguishing things
that the public thinks families do and do not need to be able to afford
for their children.
Between 1983 and 2011, a total of six surveys asked about children’s
necessities in these terms, giving a valuable picture of how attitudes to
necessities have evolved over time (see Table 1). Note that, although
these surveys have not been identical (for example, some have talked
to all adults and some just to parents about children’s needs), they are
sufficiently consistent to be comparable. The 1999 Poverty and Social
Exclusion survey found that parents and adults in general have very
similar attitudes about what constitutes a necessity for a child. In a list
of 27 items that a majority of adults viewed as necessary for children,
most had almost identical proportions of parents classifying them as
necessities, and in only three cases did the proportion of all adults
and parents classifying an item as a necessity differ by more than five
percentage points.
Table 1
Surveys of socially perceived necessities for children
Year
Study
1983
Breadline Britain5
Who was asked
1990
Breadline Britain repeat
1995
Small Fortunes7
1999
Poverty and Social Exclusion
Parents
2009
Department for Work and Pensions review of
children’s deprivation indicator9
All adults
2011
Poverty and Social Exclusion repeat10
Parents
All adults
All adults
6
Parents
8
Budget standards studies, on the other hand, compile complete lists
of items that are needed in a household shopping basket (or that are
needed for children in such a basket), in order to reach a given
standard of living. This follows a tradition dating back to Seebohm
Rowntree’s enumeration of what a working man requires to support
himself and his family.11 A number of budget standards studies have
been carried out in recent years, using methods that differ along
various dimensions, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Budget standards studies of children’s needs
Year
Study
What kind of minimum
Based on what
1979
The Cost of a Child
(Piachaud)12
‘A modern minimum’
Various evidence, author
judgements
1993
The Cost of a Child
(Family Budget Unit)
‘Modest but adequate’ 13
Normative judgements by
experts, spending surveys
‘Low cost’14
Scaling down of ‘modest
but adequate’; evidence
about socially defined
necessities from
Breadline Britain
1994
Family Fortunes15
Minimum essential
budgets
Consensus among groups
of parents
2008
onwards
A Minimum Income
Standard for the UK16
Minimum acceptable
standard of living
Consensus among groups
of the public, informed by
experts where necessary
All of these studies have had the common objective of considering
how much needs to be spent by a family to ensure that children have
a sufficient living standard. However, the level of the standard has
been described in different ways. Most of the studies shown here have
definitions related to a minimum standard below which children should
not have to fall. The exception is the ‘modest but adequate’ budgets of
the Family Budget Unit, which sought to define a ‘normal’ rather than
a ‘minimum’ living standard – for example, where more than half the
population owned an item, it was considered relevant for that standard.
It is not clear, however, whether the notion of ‘minimum’ has always
been conceptualised in the same way. Its interpretation can be
tempered by terms such as ‘bare essentials’, used in Family Fortunes,
or by having a contrasting ‘modest but adequate’ standard (as in the
1993 Family Budget Unit study: the implication being that a lower
standard may in some sense be below adequate). In these cases, there
can be a sense that ‘minimum’ may involve foregoing anything that is
not essential to meet a very basic need. On the other hand, where the
minimum is simply used to describe an ‘acceptable living standard’
appropriate for contemporary living, its interpretation more readily
encompasses the idea that people expect to live at a certain minimum
level sufficient to allow them to participate fully in society.
A second important dimension concerns the basis for identifying the
budget. This mainly involves some combination of expert judgements,
data about what level of consumption is most common, and
consultation of the public (‘consensual’ methods). After a parallel
development of expert and consensual methods, these have come
together in the minimum income standard (MIS), which is led by
consensual discussions and supported by expert knowledge.
There is no single ‘correct’ way of making these decisions. However, it
could be argued that, even though expert judgements supported by
evidence might appear more ‘scientific’, a consensual method has, in
practice, proven to be more systematic and consistent. This is because
the expert-led methods have no consistent set of principles for
selection, but rather different criteria applying to different types of
item – for example, ownership levels, scientific calculation of need
and normative judgements, combined in different ways for different
commodity types. Consensus-led budgets such as MIS, on the other
hand, have the single principle that an item is included if groups
agree it is essential for a minimum acceptable living standard, with
only a few exceptions (such as minimum heating requirements) where
groups cannot be expected to formulate such a standard, so experts
do so instead.
A further dimension, important for the actual calculation of the cost of
a child, concerns whose costs the budget covers. For each of the
studies referred to in Table 2, a cost of a child calculation has been
made based on itemised costs of what children need at particular
ages. Some such calculations refer to children at single years of age
(five, eight and 11 for Piachaud; four, 10 and 16 for the Family Budget
Unit’s modest but adequate budgets), while others cover children in
age ranges (under 11 for the Family Budget Unit’s low cost budgets;
birth to one, two to four, primary and secondary for Family Fortunes
and MIS).
As observed in the discussion of average costs, itemised children’s
costs do not give a complete picture of the cost of a child, since
having a child has consequences for overall family spending patterns,
and apportionment of shared costs can be highly arbitrary. The
Piachaud and Family Fortunes budget standards studies looked only at
children’s spending requirements in isolation, but the Family Budget
Unit and MIS studies consider them as part of a whole family budget.
This makes it possible to compare overall spending requirements in a
given family type (with or without children) with the requirement of
the same family type but with one child added. MIS offers greater
scope for such a comparison than previous studies, because it allows
the cost of any combination of adults and children in a single family
household to be calculated (except where there are more than four
children, or more than three in a lone-parent family).
Oldfield and Bradshaw, as well as estimating the cost of children of
various ages based on itemised analysis of the MIS survey, make a
briefer calculation of the additional costs that result from a child being
added to a family using the ‘deductive’ method (the difference
between whole budgets of families with different composition).17 They
argue, however, that a weakness of this method is that it gives little
idea of where the additional costs arise – for example, what
differences are attributable to changes in adult needs, to additional
children’s needs and to the moderating effects of economies of scale.
However, the MIS survey gives enough detail to make it possible to
use differences in budgets by family composition both to give a more
comprehensive account of the additional cost of having a child and to
describe the main factors that lie behind such difference. The analysis
later in this report takes this approach.
Approaches to measurement: conclusion
Differences in the approaches to estimating the ‘cost of a child’ in the
studies described in this chapter reflect the need to distinguish between:
◆
what families do spend and what they need to spend on children;
and
◆
what is spent directly on ‘children’s’ items and what is spent overall
in families as a consequence of having children.
Thinking about these factors is complex, because they interact. Actual
spending on children is influenced by a combination of the family’s
overall resources, the prioritising of what are seen as children’s needs
and parents’ attitudes to meeting their own needs. Conversely, the
perception of need itself can be influenced by what families spend in
general on children, as parents may not believe that children should
have to go without something that their peers take for granted.
In this context, information on actual family spending on particular
children’s items gives important background information on
contemporary norms that influence family expenses, but no clear-cut
account of what it costs overall to have a child. For this, a calculation
of the effect of a child on the minimum that a family needs in order to
pay for an acceptable standard of living can provide a more robust
and coherent answer.
The calculations made later in this report take such an approach.
However, rather than just producing an abstract total, they can best be
understood by looking first at what influences minimum requirements,
drawing on a range of evidence. The following chapter therefore
considers the types of cost that arise because of children’s needs in
twenty-first century Britain, while Chapter 4 looks at aspects of the
structure of family costs, including the influence of the number and
ages of children in the family, as well as at how the things identified
as necessary for adults change when they have children.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
S Middleton, K Ashworth and I Braithwaite, Small Fortunes: spending on children, childhood poverty
and parental sacrifice, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1997
L McClements, ‘Equivalence scales for children’, Journal of Public Economics, Vol.8, 1977, pp191-210
J Banks and P Johnson, Children and Household Living Standards, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1993
See note 3, p72
J Mack and S Lansley, Poor Britain, George Allen and Unwin, 1985
D Gordon and C Pantazis, Breadline Britain in the 1990s, Ashgate, 1997
See note 1
D Gordon, R Levitas, C Pantazis, D Patsios, S Payne, P Townsend, L Adelman, K Ashworth, S
Middleton, J Bradshaw and J Williams, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, 2000
S McKay, Review of the Child Material Deprivation Items in the Family Resources Survey, Department
for Work and Pensions Research Report No.746, 2011
Reporting 2013
B S Rowntree, A Study of Town Life, Macmillan, 1901
D Piachaud, The Cost of a Child, CPAG, 1979
N Oldfield and A Yu, The Cost of a Child, CPAG, 1993
H Parker (ed), Low Cost but Acceptable: a minimum income standard for the UK: families with young
children, The Policy Press and the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, 1998
S Middleton, K Ashworth and R Walker, Family Fortunes: pressures on parents and children in the
1990s, CPAG, 1994
www.minimumincomestandard.org; N Oldfield and J Bradshaw, ‘The cost of a child in a low income
household,’ Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, Vol.9, Issue 2, 2011
N Oldfield and J Bradshaw, ‘The cost of a child in a low income household,’ Journal of Poverty and
Social Justice, Vol.9, Issue 2, 2011
Three
What children need:
contributors to the cost
of a child
Every parent wants to do the best for their children. Some may
interpret this as getting them ‘everything that money can buy’, from a
private education to the best quality toys, clothes, holidays and
activities. Others may consciously want to limit what their children
should expect, not wanting to ‘spoil’ them, and also teaching them that
material things are not what make us happy. Yet families also have a
concept of what is really necessary for a child, and, although not all
agree fully on this, research has shown a considerable degree of
consensus over necessities and minimum living standards for children.
Moreover, research shows not just what people regard as necessities,
but also how living on a low income and having to go without things
can cause hardship (see especially roundups of evidence in Ridge1
and, for an earlier period, in Kempson2). This evidence is reinforced
by research asking parents to discuss what it is that makes certain
items so important for children’s wellbeing.3
The following are recurring themes in studies of children’s necessities
and the consequences of family hardship.
Meeting basic physical needs is a continuing
struggle for some families
Even in hard economic times, Britain remains a well-off society where
most people do not think twice about having enough food to eat or a
roof over their heads. Much of the discourse about poverty in recent
years has been about the need for everyone to participate fully in
society, not merely to meet basic physical needs. Yet research shows
that, in reality, some families continue to struggle to afford the bare
necessities of life.
In some cases, such struggle can be shown directly to result in hardship
for children. Pressures on food budgets, for example, can lead parents
to make spending choices that they know are unhealthy. For example,
some parents in the Centre for Research in Social Policy’s study on
credit and debt admitted to favouring ‘junk’ food when under financial
pressure, even though they knew it was not healthy – one parent said
she had recently bought 40 sausages for 89p. Recent evidence has
highlighted a growing awareness of the importance of healthy eating
and of the government’s ‘five a day’ campaign, yet there is a perception
that eating fresh fruit and vegetables is increasingly expensive.4 The
recent growth in food banks is one indicator of the difficulty that some
families are finding simply in putting food on the table.
What children need 21
Studies of life on a low income show that children continue to live in
substandard conditions that disadvantage them in life. Harker
describes a particularly revealing case study of a child living in damp
accommodation where conditions impacted both on his physical
health and on his mental wellbeing via the social impacts: he was
being teased at school because his clothes smelled.5
However, while research can sometimes uncover direct evidence of
children suffering from being deprived of essentials, it far more
commonly shows that parents will do everything they can to protect
their children from such harm. This is a theme that recurs in studies of
life on a low income throughout the past 20 years. In the 1990s, it was
a theme of the Family Fortunes study6 while Kempson notes that
women often bear the brunt of poor diet in households with children.7
More recently, Strelitz and Lister reported that parents went without
food in order to provide for their children – meaning that they were
trying to be good parents while often feeling ill and tired because they
neglected themselves physically.8
In the last main deprivation survey, the number of parents who said
that they could not afford three meals a day for their children was not
statistically significant.9 Yet it would be highly misguided to conclude
that providing food and other essentials is no longer an important
issue when paying for children. Food comprises 22 per cent of the
minimum budget required by a couple with two children in 2012
(excluding rent and childcare).10 The pressure to afford such basics
continues to be an important issue as part of the cost of a child. The
risk for families with limited resources is that either children’s needs
are inadequately met or they are met only at serious cost to the
wellbeing of their parents.
Social participation is not an optional extra
Poverty in Britain has in recent years been linked not just to material
want but also to social exclusion. Townsend described poverty as
being ‘excluded from ordinary living patterns’, and emphasised the
importance of social participation.11 In this view, basic needs do not
form a hierarchy in which food, warmth and shelter are essentials and
social activity a ‘desirable’ extra. Rather, having access to both the
physical and social norms of life in one’s own society are of equal
importance. Similarly, the cost of meeting a child’s needs have to be
considered equally in terms of social and physical aspects.
Research on what the general public views as essentials confirms this
view that a ‘minimum’ should not just be about physical basics, and
that no child should be unable to participate in society because of low
family income. The majority of members of the general public
consistently say that all families need to be able to afford such
activities as school trips, swimming and celebrating children’s
birthdays. However, the extent of social participation considered to be
22 What children need
‘necessary’ does appear to vary over time. For example, while 63 per
cent of parents surveyed in 199912 identified a holiday of a week a
year as a necessity, only 47 per cent and 46 per cent of parents did so
in 1995 and 2009, respectively.13
Research on childhood poverty underlines why being able to afford
social participation is so important. Not being able to afford to take
part in activities with one’s peers (for example, paying an entry charge
or buying refreshments) profoundly affects children’s ability to make
and sustain friendships, makes them feel different and results in
bullying and stigma.14 It can also result in boredom and involvement
in crime/anti-social behaviour. Not being able to afford to participate
in various in- and after-school activities affects children’s relationships
with teachers and can damage their experience of formal schooling.15
Horgan found that poor children worried about having to ask parents
for small amounts of money in order to participate in, for example,
non-school uniform days.16
Ridge also notes the impact that not being able to afford a holiday or
go on day trips has on parents on low incomes. Parents were
concerned that they were missing out on shared time together as a
family and thus felt that their family relationships were not given the
chance to improve as a result, as many lived in stressful situations
along with having to cope on a finite budget.
Children in poverty want to fit in, not to stand out
The stigma of childhood poverty is characterised by the effects on
children of feeling different, and by their fear that they will be
identified and mocked as being lacking. As a consequence, children
on modest means put a high priority on fitting in, and this influences
perceptions of what things are needed in order to meet a minimum
standard consistent with contemporary norms.
Ridge’s review demonstrates the difficulties that children may have in
making and sustaining friendships, and in fitting in if they lack
material goods that others are seen to enjoy.17 It also points out the
sensitivity in how families are helped to meet these needs. From a
child’s perspective, targeted help, such as free school meals, can be
highly stigmatising and embarrassing for children to be seen to
receive. Other evidence has shown that the realisation that they do
not have what others do can bring severe consequences to children,
including depression, isolation and withdrawal.18 In worst cases, being
seen as poor can lead to bullying and intimidation.
One of the most significant aspects of fitting in for children today is
having access to technology, which plays a new and special role in
the social participation of children and young people. It is important,
for example, in allowing children to conduct research and do school
work on a computer, in communicating with peers via social
networking sites and in cultural participation through access to music
and other media. It thus plays a central role both in children’s
development and in their peer interactions.
Research conducted for the Children’s Society shows the value that
children themselves place on items such as MP3 players.19 The growth
of such technology enables more and more young people to access
and share their musical or visual experiences. It is important not to
see the ownership of such goods simply in terms of status. In some
cases, having the latest technological gadget can be part of a
competitive process that distinguishes children who own the ‘right’
things and brands (often at a higher cost) from those who do not. In
others, technological items can spread, become much cheaper and
commonly owned, and become an everyday part of children’s lives –
no longer part of the ‘competition’ with peers, but rather allowing
them to communicate and share experiences. This has occurred
successively with television, mobile phones and the internet, all of
which are considered necessities by families in Britain today.20
On the other hand, where items are part of a competition to be
‘fashionable’, there is less of a case for labelling them as essential.
Children may say that ‘branded trainers’ are part of what they ‘need’ –
and this is how they responded to the Children’s Society survey.21
Parents, on the other hand, do not define branded trainers as
essential.22 This does not mean that parents pay no attention to
whether their children wear clothes that are socially acceptable – they
do not think that they should have to wear things that make them
look ‘poor’. However, they see the futility of having an escalating
definition of ‘necessity’ that involves children competing for social
status. These distinctions are far from black and white, and reflect a
negotiation between parents and children about, on the one hand,
what feels acceptable and, on the other, how to learn to resist the
pressures of fashion.
Children can generate significant costs not incurred
by adults
Many children’s needs simply replicate those of adults. They add to
what a household needs to spend on things like food, clothing and
accommodation, because more of these items are required for more
people. However, children also bring some costs that are distinctively
different from those faced by adult-only households.
Transport costs for families with children are
changing
A modern family with children faces complex travel requirements to
allow its members to work, go to school and participate in society.
Until recently, both deprivation surveys and budget standards studies
found that households with and without children could nevertheless
meet these requirements using public transport and occasional taxis.
In the minimum income standard (MIS) 2012 study, in contrast, there
was a strong consensus among parents that public transport is no
longer flexible and accessible enough to meet these requirements, so
a family with children requires a car. This transforms the minimum
transport costs for families with children and distinguishes them clearly
from those in households with only adults.
Education creates additional costs
Education is free for children attending state schools in the UK, but
families face a number of costs associated with school.
One significant cost is the school uniform. Many parents and social
commentators point out that a uniform can be a ‘social leveller’ by
disguising social difference through what children wear, and avoiding
undue pressures on low-income families to pay for expensive items
that are in fashion. However, Citizens Advice has noted that some
schools’ practices, such as restricting the supplier, can make it difficult
for parents to afford.23
Parents can also have difficulties in affording some of the ‘optional
extras’ associated with schooling, such as school photographs, nonschool uniform days, items for raffles, jumble or cake sales and
equipment for lessons.24 School trips can represent a significant cost, as
can educational materials such as revision guides, which schools may
recommend as desirable in promoting children’s educational chances.
An interesting case of additional costs associated with education was
the requirement of a computer by families with children, at an earlier
stage than the rest of the population. In 2008, MIS groups decided that
a computer was essential for children of school age because they
needed one to be able to do their homework, but was not yet an
absolute necessity for adults. Since 2010, it has been identified as
essential for working-age adults too.
Parents prioritise development opportunities, which
affect life chances
In thinking about the essential costs of bringing up children, parents
tend to prioritise those things that they think may help children
develop and hence offer them the best chances in the future. For
example, in one study of parents’ definitions of children’s necessities,
groups of parents repeatedly singled out swimming as a specific
necessity (while regarding other sporting and leisure activities as more
interchangeable), due to the importance to children of learning to
swim.25 In the same study, parents prioritised toys in early childhood
that had educational or developmental value, compared with those
that were just for enjoyment.
What happens in childhood can influence life chances and this affects
children’s needs, both in this specific, and in a more general, sense.
Children who are happy and form healthy relationships with family
and friends are more likely to thrive and to succeed in school. This
contributes to the rationale for providing adequate resources to allow
children to have these things. The opportunity to cement family
relationships, for example, is part of the rationale for having some
kind of family holiday. Hirsch and Smith also point to the importance
to families of having space in their homes to sit together and have a
family meal.26
A reduction in overall living standards may modify
attitudes to necessities but so far does not appear to
have caused a fundamental change
A striking finding among the MIS 2012 findings is that the great
majority of items identified as minimum requirements in 2012 were
identical or very similar to those identified in research for the original
2008 budgets – which took place mainly in 2007, before the onset of
harsh economic times.27 In certain areas of social participation, there
has indeed been some significant reduction in the level of social
participation deemed necessary. In MIS 2012, parents specified
considerably less frequent meals out than they had in the past, and also
reduced the value of birthday and Christmas presents that partnered
parents need to spend on each other. Moreover, groups of parents
discussing children’s necessities in the 2009 recession questioned
whether a full holiday was essential, or whether the minimum family
break should be a long weekend away28 – although in 2012, MIS
groups continued to define a full week’s holiday as necessary. It is
important to note that where the extent of social participation defined
as necessary has altered in the ways described above, the type of
social participation and its justification generally remains the same.
Respondents are still very clear that families need to spend time
together socialising. Parents tend to emphasise the social importance
of leisure activities more than their material aspects, and thus are
finding ways of specifying participation in a more thrifty manner.
The definitions of necessities are similar but not
identical among fathers, mothers, all adults and
children
Whose perspective should we take when defining what children need
and therefore the minimum cost of raising them? The views of the
adult population as a whole have some relevance, particularly when
the cost of a child is being related to taxpayers’ support for families.
On the other hand, parents have closer knowledge of what it takes to
raise a child, and mothers typically more so than fathers, as they have
been shown to take much greater responsibility for spending affecting
children.29 And children themselves clearly have an interest, along with
a perspective of their needs that might not be identical to that of their
parents.
In practice, research has shown a great similarity in the definition of
children’s needs among these different groups. As referred to in
Chapter 2, there is a remarkably close correspondence between the
items listed as children’s necessities by all adults and by parents only.
In discussing family budgets in greater detail, the MIS project has not
detected any marked difference between mothers’ and fathers’ views –
in mixed parents’ groups, mothers can sometimes be better informed
about the details of children’s needs and available products, but there
is no clear tendency for fathers and mothers to come to different
judgements.
The most marked difference in attitudes to necessities appears to be
between parents and children, judging from the Children’s Society list
of items that children identify as needed30 compared with equivalent
lists by adults.31 Children appear to be more inclined to list items as
essential because it is socially expected that you should have them, and
include branded trainers in their list. However, two important caveats
must be noted. The first is that the overlaps between children’s and
adults’ lists are greater than the differences, and there is much
commonality in the stated rationales. Both children and adults emphasise
the importance of children being able to participate in family life and
to interact with their peers, as part of ‘social participation’, even though
there are certain differences in what they judge as necessary in order
to do so. The other caveat is that the Children’s Society asked children
what is needed for a ‘normal life’, which it was felt would be most
meaningful to them, and this may not be interpreted in the same way
as questions to adult about whether an item is a ‘necessity’ for a child.
The estimates of the cost of a child in this report rest on judgements
made by parents about family budgets. This method has been chosen
because it is parents who have direct responsibility for financing and
managing most of the spending that meets children’s needs. As shown,
it is not the only perspective on the cost of a child, but neither does it
entail a radically different view of what children need from the views
of other adults or of children.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
T Ridge, Living with Poverty: a review of the literature on children’s and families’ experiences of
poverty, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No.594, 2009
E Kempson, Life on a Low Income, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1996
S Middleton, K Ashworth and I Braithwaite, Small Fortunes: spending on children, childhood poverty
and parental sacrifice, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1997; D Hirsch and N Smith, Family Values:
parents’ views on necessities for families with children, Department for Work and Pensions Research
Report No.641, 2010
For example, see D Hirsch and N Smith, Family Values: parents’ views on necessities for families with
children, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No.641, 2010
L Harker, Chance of a Lifetime: the impact of bad housing on children’s lives, Shelter, 2006
S Middleton, K Ashworth and R Walker, Family Fortunes: pressures on parents and children in the
1990s, CPAG, 1994
See note 2
R Lister and J Strelitz, ‘Parents Speak Out’ in J Strelitz and R Lister (eds), Why Money Matters: family
income, poverty and children’s lives, Save the Children, 2008
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
D Gordon, R Levitas, C Pantazis, D Patsios, S Payne, P Townsend, L Adelman, K Ashworth, S
Middleton, J Bradshaw and J Williams, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, 2000
A Davis, D Hirsch, N Smith, J Beckhelling and M Padley, A Minimum Income Standard for the UK in
2012: keeping up in hard times, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2012
P Townsend, ‘Poverty as relative deprivation’, in D Wedderburn (ed), Poverty, Inequality and Class
Structure, Cambridge University Press, 1974, p15
See note 9
See note 6; S McKay, Review of the Child Material Deprivation Items in the Family Resources Survey,
Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No.746, 2011
See note 1
F Wikeley, K Bulloc, Y Muschamp and T Ridge, Educational Relationships Outside School: why access
is important, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007
G Horgan, The Impact of Poverty on Young Children’s Experience of School, 2007
See note 1
Save the Children, Telling It Like It Is, Save the Children, 2011
L Pople, G Rees, J Bradshaw and G Main, Missing Out: a child centred analysis of material
deprivation and subjective well-being, The Children’s Society, 2011
See note 10
See note 19
See note 10
Citizens Advice, Adding Up: the range and impact of school costs on families, 2007
See note 23; Department for Education and Skills, The Cost of Schooling, 2004
D Hirsch and N Smith, Family Values: parents’ views on necessities for families with children,
Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No.641, 2010
See note 25
See note 10
See note 25
J Goode, C Callender and R Lister, Purse or Wallet: gender inequalities and the income distribution
within families on benefit, Policy Studies Institute, 1998
See note 19
S McKay, Review of the Child Material Deprivation Items in the Family Resources Survey, Department
for Work and Pensions Research Report No.746, 2011
Four
How parents view family
spending requirements:
new evidence
How do patterns of household need and spending change when
people have children and when families grow larger? As discussed in
Chapter 1, the overall amount that households spend is influenced by
the actual resources that they have available, not just by what family
members actually need. However, parental attitudes towards needs
and how they should be prioritised influence who and what they
spend their money on. The cost of children in different types of family
must be seen in this light.
As part of the current research, we asked groups of parents to discuss
their experiences of how spending patterns and spending needs are
affected by the composition of families. This chapter considers the
general findings of this research in terms of how families view the
consequences of children for family spending. It goes on to explore
specific impacts of family composition on the cost of a child, drawing
both on the experiences of families described in this new research and
on the ongoing minimum income standard (MIS) research into what
different families need for an acceptable standard of living.
How life changes with children: general findings
To help understand how family composition affects household costs,
we conducted three focus groups of parents, and asked them to
discuss the changes that occur in families as a result of having
children. These groups were tasked with identifying the influence of
having a child, and the influence of having different numbers and
ages of children, on the spending needs of families. They were asked
to think about this in the context of how life changes when someone
has a child and reflect on how families actually allocate resources to
different areas of spending, rather than only thinking about needs in
the abstract.
Parents in this research were clear that life changes fundamentally as a
result of having children, so that the presence of children does not just
create an ‘add on’ to meet their needs in addition those of adults, but
rather affects how the whole family lives and consumes. They also
pointed to some additional changes that occur for larger families. In
particular, several overall themes emerged.
How parents view family spending requirements 29
New responsibilities bring changing lifestyles
Participants told us that when they became parents, they were aware
of the need to be responsible adults as they were now in charge of
meeting someone else’s needs in addition to their own. Parents had to
be organised and outside activities could no longer be spontaneous as
everything had to be planned in advance. They talked about how they
were unable to ‘pop out’ without arranging childcare in advance and
how this meant that their needs as adults were subsumed by the
needs of their children:
‘You go from being able to do what you want to being controlled with
everything that you do. You’ve got somebody else now who totally depends
on you to do everything for them.’
This responsibility affected all aspects of parents’ behaviour, from how
much alcohol they drank, the choices they made about what they
spent their money on, to the need to teach their children the correct
behaviour and values.
Parents prioritise meeting children’s needs
Of considerable concern were the financial constraints that parents felt
under because of, for example, giving up their jobs to provide care or
having to pay for childcare. However, having responsibility for
children meant that parents diverted their resources, prioritising
meeting their children’s needs above their own:
‘I mean, I went from just going out and spending silly money on whatever I
wanted to. Now I’m having to think about baby clothes, baby formula,
everything else that encompassed a child, so you’re right, everything I
wanted didn’t matter, it was everything that they needed.’
There were several instances of favourite sports having to be forgone
or small cars reluctantly having to be sold because they could no
longer accommodate their growing families. Parents reported that they
rarely ate out as a couple and had fewer holidays – particularly
holidays abroad:
‘I haven’t been abroad since I had children. I’m not begging to go, it’s
something that I’ve noticed.’
Time is particularly important to families as a
scarce resource
Many parents perceived lack of time to be their greatest challenge.
Lack of time affected their relationships with partners and how they
dealt with their family’s needs. Parents believed it very important to
spend time with their partners, but recognised that the needs of the
children came first. A particular issue for parents of three or more
30 How parents view family spending requirements
children, or for those with young children, was the time needed to get
everyone ready to get out of the house in the mornings. Parents with
larger families pointed out that, because there were more children, their
parental time had to be stretched further. This led to some concern
about their children suffering from a lack of individual attention:
‘They get less time with myself and my wife. We’ve got four young ones, so it
is quite hard to give a lot of time to one of them in a go, so they probably
suffer a bit from that.’
Some parents also felt that having children a few years apart meant
that parental attention could be more evenly distributed, as when their
children grew older they were more able to do things together as a
family. As children grew older, it became easier for them to understand
that a younger child’s needs had to take precedence to their own.
Parents perceived that those children without siblings would have
more time devoted to them on an individual basis and that babies
were automatically afforded more attention because of the immediacy
of their needs. Parents with more than two children and/or a
combination of older and younger children felt especially squeezed for
time. Meeting the needs of several children combined with the
demands that very young children placed on parents made it difficult
to get things done and to ensure that everyone received attention.
Therefore, these parents had to meet their family’s needs in the most
convenient way possible. Time and convenience were major reasons
given for the need for ‘white’ goods and consumer items that helped
parents organise and manage their family’s needs.
Having a large family brings some economies of
scale, but also some distinctive extra requirements
In some respects, the additional cost of each extra child in a family
should diminish. Economies of scale mean that it is not always necessary
to buy so much additionally for each successive child, particularly in
the case of items that only need to be bought once. For example, if a
family cannot cope adequately without a car once the first child
arrives (as the 2012 MIS research found), this will impose an additional
car purchase cost that will not recur when the second child arrives.
However, in some cases, having a large family creates new categories
of needs. For example, families consider that a tumble dryer becomes
essential once a family reaches a certain size. For this reason, the
additional cost of each successive child does not fall as systematically
as might otherwise be the case.
Moreover, regardless of the average cost per child, parents in large
families faced bigger overall costs that made them think about
children’s costs differently. Those with three or more children
explained how they needed to be more resourceful the more children
they had and that they became more careful about what they spent:
‘When I was younger I used to spend quite a lot on clothing, so with my
first born I did the same. I think I bought a baby top, the first top I bought
her cost a lot … and she wore it once and then two weeks later, I said …
she can wear that top again, and [wife] said it was stained and I realised
quickly that you can’t, so I would still go out and buy stuff, but then when
our second was born I think I started getting more conscious about how
you spend your money and everything.’
Parents balance meeting children’s needs and
managing their expectations
A key issue for all parents in this research was how best to meet their
children’s different needs and expectations about clothing, and
personal items such as toys and games, as well as making sure they
could go on outings and take part in activities. However, above all,
parents with more than one child wanted to ensure that they were
being seen to be fair to each of their children. For certain items, this
involved being pragmatic and basing decisions on immediate need.
An example given was where a child had holes in his shoes which
took priority over other children’s needs in the family.
Parents also explained that they wanted to make sure that all their
children were treated equally unless there was an obvious and
immediate need for something for one child ahead of others in the
family. This tended to take two forms. First, there were those parents
who tended to spend the same amount on all their children for
Christmas and birthdays regardless of the age of their children. In this
way, they could consider that they had acted fairly:
‘In our house they have the same for their birthday, the same for their
Christmas… Regardless of age.’
Other parents, particularly those with larger families, felt that if older
children wanted an item that cost more they should have it, as
younger children would not be aware of the cost or feel deprived if
the monetary value of their presents was less:
‘This year my oldest wanted a DS so we got him a DS and that was
considerably more money than we spent on the 18-month-old and the
baby, so I think that’s more important as they get older.’
Parents also mentioned that they managed their younger children’s
expectations by promising them that when they grew up they would
also be able to go on outings that their older siblings had been on or
receive the more expensive items that their older siblings had now:
‘I mean, my oldest she went to France with the school, so when the middle
one went up to secondary school, [I said] you can go on the French trip, but
I did say don’t ask to go skiing because your sister didn’t go, so you can go
to France, and I said to the youngest one, when you get to that point you
can go to France, but please don’t ask me to go skiing because you won’t be
allowed to go.’
The impact of family composition on meeting
particular family needs
We can now look more specifically at the effect of family composition
on how much households need to spend in particular consumption
areas. The following draws both on the discussion groups carried out
for this study and on the main minimum income standard research. In
some cases, where indicated, the MIS specifications have been
modified in 2012 to take account of findings for the present study.
More commonly, these findings have helped interpret or contextualise
the minimum requirements specified by MIS.
Homes, space and household items
The number, ages and gender of children affect the need for more
bedroom space. Parents highlighted the need for enough bedrooms to
accommodate their children. For example, one parent of four children
stated that, although his daughter was sleeping in one room, his three
boys were sharing another, which he felt was too crowded. He was
less concerned about having more downstairs space. Another parent
of a young boy and girl who were sharing a room knew that, at some
point, she would need to move house to enable them to have their
own bedrooms. Other parents believed that they needed more living
space as their children grew up and required their own downstairs
space. Parents also believed that the gap between children can affect
the need for additional bedroom space because of the need for privacy
when children reach their teenage years:
‘… my boys have got a seven-year age gap, so when my 18-year-old was
slightly younger I wouldn’t expect like a 14-year-old lad to share a
bedroom with a seven-year-old lad, because once they hit the teenage years
they need their privacy, you know.’
These findings correspond with the MIS specification, which in most
cases assumes one bedroom per child. It suggests that bedroom space
is the key priority in determining whether homes feel big enough for
a family.
A few parents with four children considered additional bathroom space
to be important. In these cases all the children were girls, and parents
felt that they were currently all trying to access it at the same time.
Having more than one child and having children of different ages
increases the likelihood of needing to repair and replace household
items. Parents talked about how older girls and boys had a tendency
to spill things on carpets, creating stains, while younger children could
often be more destructive by, for example, drawing on furniture and
wallpaper and by breaking things.
Household appliances
Across household types, it is agreed that a modern home requires a
fridge, a freezer, a microwave and a washing machine. Tumble dryers,
however, are not considered essential for households in general. But
parents considered them to be vital in households with more than two
children who are close together in age and, in particular, if they are
babies and/or toddlers. Parents explained that this was because the
amount of washing increased with the number of children and,
without good weather, the likelihood was that laundry would not dry
quickly enough for when it was needed. This was particularly the case
in households with very young children, as they were often sick and
clothing needed washing more frequently. Tumble dryers were
considered essential if parents worked during the day and, given the
British weather, were unable to rescue washing from washing lines in
the event of a downpour. Tumble dryers provided a convenient and
easy way of getting the family’s clothes dry and ready in the limited
time they had available.
This distinction between needs in larger and smaller families has been
built into the MIS specifications.
Computer access and use
The main MIS research has highlighted how important it is for
households with children to have a computer at home.1 Parents in this
research explained how having a large family affected the need for
additional computers. Parents told us that they often took last place in
being able to access a computer. They felt that when there were two
or more school-age children in the household it was essential to have
an additional computer. This is because school work was perceived to
put considerable pressure on children to have access to computers,
which grows as school progresses. Parents also discussed how gender
played a part in affecting access to household computers, pointing out
that older children disliked spending time in each other’s rooms. One
group of parents suggested that an additional computer within the
home could take the form of a netbook, a cheaper form of computer
which provides internet access:
‘Two netbooks for the cost of a laptop so why not buy two netbooks instead
of a laptop? That way if you’ve got more than one kid… They’re half the
price of the normal laptop. You can get a decent netbook for £200.’
The requirement for an additional computer where there is more than
one school-age child has been built into the MIS specification.
Handing down and sharing clothes, toys and equipment
In principle, in larger families, handing down and sharing items could
provide an important economy of scale. However, when specifying
minimum requirements, it is difficult to assume that certain items will
be shared, the feasibility of which may be influenced by a number of
factors, including gender and storage space.
Having children many years apart was considered by the parents’
groups to mean that items could not be handed down, and parents in
such situations had to start again in terms of buying baby equipment
and clothing. Items had either gone out of fashion or a lack of storage
space meant they could not be kept or they were unsuitable because
they had not been stored properly:
‘It depends if you’ve got the space to save them [pushchairs] … I didn’t get
rid of the pushchairs, they were just in the garage. I kept meaning to put
them on eBay and never got around to it … I was pregnant with the
youngest. Sometimes though if you store things, things get a bit damp, get a
bit rusty, you don’t want that for a baby do you?’
The smaller the age gap between the children, the more likely it was
that parents could reuse or pass on items, such as plug socket covers,
stair gates and sterilising equipment, while some items, such as
feeding bottle teats, were bought new for each child. Having children
close together also affected the need for additional items, such as a
buggy board, a double pushchair and additional car seats, which
could be costly.
Specifications for MIS requirements for various family combinations
have been adjusted accordingly.
Parents noted that it was important for children to have a say about
what they owned and wore, but that this developed once they were
mixing with other children at school. They felt that children became
more discerning about their clothes and their own personal items at
this stage. This was primarily because they were socialising more with
their peers, spending time at friends’ houses and seeing what they had:
‘Things like bedding and stuff, they wouldn’t choose bedding or anything
until they were seven or eight years when they’ve been at school and want
to be like their friends when they go to other people’s houses and see what
their peers have got and everything else…’
‘That’s about when my two started to pick what they wanted.’
This affected what clothes they chose to wear most frequently and
hence how worn out clothes or bedding became, which could affect
how suitable they were for passing down to subsequent children.
Having both girls and boys also affected what clothing could be
passed on within the family.
The number of times clothing was worn also affected whether it could
be handed on to other children within the family. School uniforms
were a case in point as they are worn so frequently and, in many
cases, washed so often. This could affect the lifespan of jumpers and
this, as these parents note, affected whether children were marked out
as poor or as different:
‘At the school my son’s at there is no option, you buy the school shirt and
jumper from school, it has the logo on it, you can’t get them anywhere else,
and Reception’s are beautiful, well it’s blue and gold; blue and gold go
great, and as the children get older the colour fades and you can spot the
children who have got older siblings because their jumpers are a lighter
shade of blue.’
‘Also the school has second-hand uniform sales twice a year.’
‘There are children who are wearing someone else’s second-hand jumper,
so it doesn’t make them stand out is the point I’m making.’
Transport
Parents agree that a car is needed in order to meet the needs of
families with children: an important extra cost compared with adults
without children who, in urban areas, specify that a car is not
generally essential. Larger families also face additional costs if a
different kind of car is required.
The number and ages of children affect the need for a bigger family
car in order to transport children safely. For example, it was
considered impossible to fit three car seats into the back seat of a
Ford Focus. It also proved difficult to fit a family of three or more
children into the back seat of an estate car, especially if all of the
children needed car seats. One parent had swapped the family’s estate
car for a minibus when he found out he was expecting a fourth child.
A seven-seater was considered the minimum acceptable size of vehicle
for a family of four children and two adults, but there was recognition
that there was no boot space if pushchairs were required. A roof rack
was then put forward as a solution. Not having a car in families with
three or four children would mean that children would not be able to
take part in activities outside the home as the logistics would be
difficult to manage. In addition, having several younger children
would make it difficult to get anywhere safely via public transport.
Social participation
As discussed, the presence and number of children in a household
can have an important effect on the ways in which people participate
socially, including taking part in activities outside the home,
consuming alcohol and giving presents.
A familiar refrain among parents was that they had little leisure time to
themselves since having children and this was particularly the case
among larger families. They were unable to do things without their
children, or without having childcare in place for younger children. As
such, in many cases their whole lifestyle underwent a change. For
example, socialising took place with other families who also had
children and this meant going to each other’s houses rather than going
out doing ‘adult’ things. Parents also told us that, since having
children, their own social lives were subordinate to the overall needs
of the family and consisted of doing things as a family together, rather
than individually:
‘As a family we do lots of things, we do camping, biking, you know, walks.’
‘A lot of our socialising is done together as a family. We don’t go down the
pub, we go around each other’s houses and we’ve all got children of
similar ages so we’ll take it in turns around houses and do it that way.’
Parents reported that they ate out less often since having children, as
well as drinking less alcohol in the home. Parents did believe,
however, that it was very important to eat out together (as a family,
no matter how big) because it gave parents a break from cooking and
provided the opportunity to educate children about the correct
behaviour and table manners required in public. However, in MIS
2012 the minimum frequency with which a family should be able to
eat out has reduced since 2008, to just three times a year.
One of the reasons for restricting how much alcohol they consumed at
home was that parents were aware that they may need to take their
child to hospital if there was an emergency. They also felt that they
could not function properly the next day if they had over-indulged the
night before.
These perspectives help explain why MIS parents’ groups have
specified a lower minimum requirement for adults eating out and
drinking alcohol inside and outside the home when they have children
compared with when they do not. When a couple has a baby, the
total MIS budget for social participation and for food (which includes
eating out) actually falls. The limited needs of the baby in these
categories are outweighed by reductions. It also explains why some
aspects of socialising outside the home, such as an occasional drink
with colleagues after work, have been considered part of an essential
minimum for adults without children, but not those with children.
Family composition also affects perspectives about social participation
for children. Parents stressed that, even in large families of three or
more children, each child should be able to take part in two activities
a week (as specified by MIS), despite the logistical difficulties that this
could entail. Parents with more than two children highlighted the
extent to which they had to negotiate with their children who could
do what and when:
‘So and so’s got a party to go to but the other one needs a taxi to the
pictures, and then you have to juggle your time. I mean I had an instance
the other week and the middle one was saying, “Mum can you pick me up
from town at 5:30?” I said, “No, I can’t, I’ve got to be at Brownies at that
time.” You know, I said, “It’s five o’clock or you’re walking, final offer.”
“Right, deal.” That’s what came back.’
Of major concern to parents was the need to ensure that their children
could participate with the rest of their peers. This was particularly the
case when making sure their children had items other children had:
‘My son has a DS, he got it for Christmas and it was a family present so his
grandparents and my husband and I we all put together to have that… But
part of the decision, because I think they’re ridiculously expensive and my
initial reaction when he said that’s what he really, really wanted, he’d go
without everything else for Christmas if he could have one of these, and my
initial thinking was, no that’s ridiculous they’re £150. But then we talked
about it and realised that he’s the only child in his whole year group that
didn’t have one.’
Parents with children of different ages prioritised their older children’s
need for clothing because of concerns about them fitting in with their
peers. For example, unless there was an immediate need, older
children took priority as they were more likely to mix with others and
socialise with friends. What their children’s peers wear and think
about certain styles can affect what their children wear and feel about
themselves, thus influencing how well they fit in.
This greater importance of children’s perceptions among older
children also affected attitudes to birthday and Christmas presents.
Parents noted that the items teenagers tended to want for birthdays
and Christmas were bigger and more expensive than the items
younger children wanted:
‘They get more expensive and again when they get to teenage years, the
things that they like cost a lot more… I could buy one object for my
teenager and if I spend the same amount on my 11-year-old it will be
loads. He doesn’t want the big telly or the PS3 and what have you, he’s 11
he’s into other things and they cost a lot less.’
Conclusion: perspectives on family spending and the
cost of a child
Drawing on the perspectives of parents, there are several overlapping
issues related to the cost of a child:
◆
The actual consequences of having a child on how much is spent
on adults and on children. Unsurprisingly, where there are more
‘mouths to feed’, there is less money to spend on each individual.
But the fact that parents prioritise children’s spending means that
there is a particularly noticeable cutback on what is spent on adults.
And in larger families, some children’s requirements take priority
over others, albeit in the context of parents wanting to be fair.
◆
The extent to which these consequences mean that needs go
unmet. Parents talked about making sacrifices, but also about doing
without some things (such as foreign holidays) that were not
necessarily a basic requirement of life. Whether the cost of meeting
the needs of an additional child will involve deprivation for another
member of the family depends on overall family income.
◆
The extent to which families believe that needs change, or can be
met in new ways, when family circumstances alter. Parents in this
research described the different ways that both adults and children
lived according to who else was in their family. For example, adult
patterns of socialising are not going to be the same when they
have children as when they do not, because of their responsibilities
and time constraints. Assessments of what is required for an
‘acceptable’ standard of living will be influenced by this context.
This means that, in practice, the additional costs of a child can, in
some respects, be partially offset by reduced costs elsewhere in the
family budget, particularly if the arrival of the first child is
associated with a less expensive budget for adult socialising.
The discussions with parents showed that it is hard to separate these
features very clearly, but each is an aspect of the cost of a child. The
evidence shows that, while the calculations in the following chapter
interpret the cost of children to mean the net additional household
spending requirements arising from the presence of a child, there are
other important aspects to such costs. In particular, the findings
underline that adults typically do make material sacrifices when they
have children – even though they often do so willingly as a feature of
family life, which brings other, more intangible, benefits.
Notes
1
A Davis, D Hirsch and N Smith, A Minimum Income Standard in the UK for 2010, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, 2010, pp13-14
Five
The cost of a child in 2012
This chapter sets out our calculations for the cost of a child in 2012, in
a form that will be easily updatable on an annual basis. As concluded
at the end of Chapter 2, the most robust and coherent measure of the
cost of a child involves:
◆
looking at what households of different types need to spend to
achieve a minimum acceptable standard of living; and
◆
considering how these overall household spending requirements
increase as the consequence of having one or more children.
Thus, the following calculations are based on the difference in the cost
of household necessities associated with each additional child.
We look below first at an overall calculation of the additional cost of
children and then at how this compares with what the state gives to
families in different situations to help them cover these additional costs.
Calculation of the cost of a child
We use the following method to calculate the additional cost of having
a child in the family in 2012.
40 The cost of a child in 2012
◆
Based on the minimum income standard (MIS) research for April
2012, we look at minimum costs for households without children
and with children of various ages. The research only covers
‘nuclear’ families – ie, households comprising a single adult or a
couple plus dependent children. It distinguishes between children’s
costs in four different age categories: birth to one, two to four,
primary school age and secondary school age.
◆
To calculate the cost of, say, a five-year-old who is the first child of
a couple, we subtract the cost of a couple without children from
that of a family with one child aged five. In the case of a loneparent family, we subtract the cost of a single adult from that of a
lone parent with one child.
◆
To calculate the additional cost of a second child aged five, we
consider first the cost of a family with children aged five and eight.
(This assumes a three-year age gap, which is the median for twochild families, identified from Family Resources Survey data.) We
then subtract from this the cost of a family with just an eight-yearold, which would have been incurred had the second child not
arrived: the difference is the additional cost of the second child.
◆
We repeat this for a third and (in the case of couples) a fourth
child, in each case looking at the additional costs of the youngest
child at a specified age by comparing family costs with and without
that child. In each case, we assume age gaps equal to the median
in gaps by birth order in the given family size.
◆
For each child by birth order, this produces an 18-year sequence of
additional costs, starting from the year following birth and ending
with the year following the seventeenth birthday. We can then look
both at the average costs of a child and at variations during the
course of childhood.
The average cost of a child in 2012 is shown in Table 1. The MIS
research, on which these costs are based, covers couples with up to
four children and lone parents with up to three children.
Table 1
The additional cost of each child, 2012
Couple parents
All additional costs
Total cost over 18 years
Average per year
Average per week
Lone parent
First child
Second child
Third child
Fourth child
First child
Second child
Third child
£154,785.71
£130,573.86
£140,874.75
£125,527.78
£171,994.73
£138,036.03
£124,650.26
£8,599.21
£7,254.10
£7,826.37
£6,973.77
£9,555.26
£7,668.67
£6,925.01
£164.92
£139.12
£150.09
£133.74
£183.25
£147.07
£132.81
£83,567.57
£75,915.89
£79,398.55
£73,469.82
£94,232.90
£82,427.30
£89,246.08
£4,642.64
£4,217.55
£4,411.03
£4,081.66
£5,235.16
£4,579.29
£4,958.12
£89.04
£80.88
£84.60
£78.28
£100.40
£87.82
£95.09
Excluding rent, childcare
and council tax
Total cost over 18 years
Average per year
Average per week
Table 1 shows that, on average, the day-to-day costs of a child come
to about £80 to £100 a week, with childcare adding substantially to
this amount. Over 18 years, each child can cost over £100,000 to bring
up when the cost of childcare is included, or £70,000 to £95,000 when
it is not.
How are these costs comprised? It is difficult, using the ‘additional
costs’ method, to give a clear-cut breakdown of how much different
children’s items contribute to the overall costs, since the comparison
‘overall household costs’ includes some ways in which adult or wholefamily needs are met differently when household composition
changes. However, the following features are of interest.
◆
When the first child arrives, the biggest additional cost is transport.
Based on detailed discussion with groups of members of the
public, MIS assumes that the arrival of this child triggers the need
for a car, in order to achieve an acceptable living standard. This
typically accounts for between one-third and one-half of the overall
additional cost of the first child. Most of the other additional costs
are divided roughly evenly between clothing, household goods and
personal goods and services, such as toiletries and health costs.
◆
Some costs initially decrease with the arrival of the first child. For
example, the minimum cost of social and cultural participation is
slightly lower for a couple with a young child than for a couple
without children. As discussed in Chapter 4, different patterns of
social participation when people have children account for that
effect. However, we must interpret this result with some caution
because MIS looked in more detail at costs for families with children
than those without children in 2012, and this may have helped
The cost of a child in 2012 41
cause the research to identify more tightening of social participation
budgets for the former since the onset of the recession.
◆
The net additional cost of the first child is greater in a lone-parent
family than for a couple. This is largely because for those areas
where parents have lower specified spending requirements than
adults without children, the benefit is only felt once for a single
adult rather than twice for a couple. Food costs do not go up much
overall when the first child arrives, partly because they include
eating out and are subjected to the lower cost of leisure activities.
However, even when this effect is taken into account, a single
older child increases the net cost of food substantially compared
with if there were no children.
◆
The additional costs of the second and subsequent children are
composed differently from that of the first child. Additional
motoring costs are less: once a family owns a car, the costs of
increasing mileage or even getting a larger car as the family grows
are small relative to the baseline cost of ownership. On the other
hand, the cost of meeting the social participation needs associated
with additional children is no longer offset by lower costs for
adults, as it is when they become parents. The single greatest
category of additional costs for a second child is therefore social
participation, followed by food.
◆
Most additional costs are greater when children are older than
younger. For example, each additional secondary school-age child
typically adds about twice as much to the food budget and 1.5
times as much to the clothing budget at as a baby does. The
obvious exception to this pattern is childcare (see page 43).
◆
In general, modest economies of scale reduce the additional cost
for each child, although not by much. The effect is limited in part
because, in some cases, there is a ‘tipping point’ that puts costs up
disproportionately for an extra child – a ‘diseconomy of scale’. For
example, fuel costs typically increase by two to three times as
much for a third child than for a second child, because running a
tumble dryer, specified only where there are at least three children,
consumes a large amount of electricity. The results are also
influenced by where exactly the scale economies occur. The
additional cost of a second child in a couple family is relatively
low, in large part because food costs increase by relatively little for
the couple’s second child. This may be because packet and portion
sizes happen to be well suited to this size of family, producing
better value for money than for larger or smaller ones.
◆
Housing costs do not figure as prominently in these calculations as
they may for some families. We assume in all cases that households
are social tenants, and social rents do not change very dramatically
as the size of families and homes increase. In reality, for families
renting or buying their homes privately, additional housing costs
are likely to be greater. It is impossible to produce a standard
minimum cost in these sectors, where prices vary greatly. However,
the potential size of such costs can be illustrated by considering the
official figures for a modest private rent, used by the government
in setting caps on local housing allowance rates. Using the average
of these rates for local housing market areas in England, we can
compare rents for different sized properties. Adding a second
bedroom is associated with an additional rent of £29 a week, a
third costs £28 and a fourth costs £25. These equate to an
additional lifetime cost of around £25,000 a year per child. For
out-of-work families and those on very low incomes, at least some
of this cost will be covered by housing benefit (although many
families unable to find such a modest rent have to contribute
themselves), but for working families who are not on very low
earnings, this support is withdrawn.
◆
It is interesting to note that these calculations of the cost of children
suggest that they are higher, relative to adult costs, than have been
assumed in measuring household incomes. The ‘equivalence scales’
referred to earlier in this report assume that a child under 14 costs
20 per cent as much as a couple without children. Our calculations
suggest that the true figure is around 21 per cent for a child from
birth to age one, rising progressively to 37 per cent for a secondary
school-aged child. This finding is important because it shows that
estimates of poverty rates, which assume that the threshold below
which a household is in poverty is substantially higher for a family
with children than without, if anything underestimate this difference.
A supplementary calculation shown in Appendix 2 estimates what
poverty rates would be if these calculations of relative needs were
taken into account.
The total cost of children at ascending ages escalates in terms of dayto-day living costs, but reduces in terms of childcare. Children above
the age of 14 are assumed not to require childcare, younger school-age
children typically get about 30 hours of free ‘care’ at school, and children
aged three and four have a 15-hour entitlement at a nursery or other
childcare setting – but below that age, there is no free entitlement.
Figure 1 shows, in the lower line, that for a family not paying for
childcare, the overall cost of a first child rises by about 50 per cent
from infancy to secondary school age. However, for the many couples
who both need to work in order to make ends meet, the cost of
childcare reverses this picture. For those working full time and
receiving no help from the state with childcare costs, children are
easily the most expensive during the initial period before any
entitlement to free nursery or school provision, when about two-thirds
of additional costs are attributable to childcare.
The cost of a child in 2012 43
Figure 1
Additional cost of first child of a couple, by age and childcare
status, 2012
250
With unsupported childcare
With childcare, supported by tax credits
No childcare costs
200
£ per week
150
100
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Child’s age at last birthday
On the other hand, for those on low incomes who are entitled to tax
credits, the effective additional cost of childcare is reduced by 70 per
cent. The effect, shown by the middle line in Figure 1, is to make
overall costs for low-income families in work potentially fairly even
during the course of childhood, with the higher family contribution to
childcare in the early years being similar to the lower cost of other
aspects of bringing up younger children. However, the net cost is still
higher in the early years than in the teenage years, a reversal of the
situation from before April 2011 when the childcare tax credit was
more generous, paying 80 per cent rather than 70 per cent of childcare
costs. Then, bringing up a child on low earnings cost about 5 per cent
less in infancy than at secondary age, rather than about 8 per cent
more today.
Note that the jump in costs shown at the age of 11 in Figure 1 is due
to the simplified assumption that day-to-day costs are the same for any
child aged 5–11 and the same for any child aged 11–18, so the
increased cost of a secondary school child comes all at once. On the
other hand, a schoolchild’s childcare needs are assumed to continue
until age 14, so there are three years when both of these costs
combine. In reality, changes are likely to be more gradual, but it is
reasonable to assume that the growing cost of a child at secondary
school will start to kick in before the expense of childcare ceases.
Six
The state’s contribution
to the additional cost
of children
The state makes many types of contribution to the cost of bringing up
a child, not least by providing services, such as school education,
healthcare and some childcare, free of charge. The measure in this
report has considered the cost of a child that families need to find out
of their income after the provision of such services. The state also uses
benefits and tax credits to help support the incomes of families with
children. How much do these income transfers offset the additional
cost of having children, for various types of family?
In addressing this question, we should certainly not assume that the
state’s role is to make having children cost-neutral for families. In most
cases, we expect families to play the main role in providing for their
children. There are two main reasons for the state to have a role. One
is to transfer at a general level some resources from people without
children to those who have them. This is partly an acknowledgement
of the fact that society values children, and wants to make some
collective contribution to the cost of supporting them. It can also be
seen as a means of redistributing money across the lifecycle, between
those who are at a cheaper and more expensive period of their lives.
The second reason for income transfers, and one that has become
more dominant in recent years, is to ensure that all families have the
means to bring up their children at some minimum level – in particular,
to keep them out of poverty. This second basis, taken to its logical
conclusion, could point to the state paying most, or all, of the cost of
bringing up a child at a minimum level, in families depending wholly
on the state for their income. It is not the role of this report to address
the politically controversial issue of whether this is desirable, but the
calculations below inform the debate by measuring how close the
system gets to providing for minimum family needs.
Out-of-work benefits
The most straightforward comparison is between the additional cost of
a child and the maximum amount that a family can receive in benefits
and tax credits in respect of that child, if the family does not work.
This is the sum of child benefit and child tax credit. This is added to
the income support entitlement of a single adult or couple to comprise
the basic level of benefits received by the family to cover basic living
costs. Rent and council tax are outside this system and (up to certain
limits in the case of rent) are reimbursed fully through housing benefit
and council tax benefit. The following calculations exclude rent and
The state’s contribution 45
council tax from both the spending needs and the benefits received by
out-of-work families.
Figure 1 shows how the additional cost of each successive child in the
family (averaged over all ages) compares with the additional amounts
received in benefit. It shows that:
◆
Adults without children get only about half their needs met by the
benefits system.
◆
A much higher proportion of children’s needs are provided for than
adult needs. In the examples shown, additional benefits provide
between 73 per cent and 94 per cent of the extra cost of a child.
This hides greater variation if we take into account variations in
cost by age. For children under the age of two, in some cases,
benefits provide slightly more than the minimum additional cost of
the child. In contrast, a lone parent gets less than two-thirds of
what is needed for the additional cost of a second child of
secondary school age.
Figure 2 shows that two things happen when a family gets larger. The
first is that benefits provide a growing proportion of overall family
needs. The second is, however, that the absolute amount by which a
family falls short of meeting these needs increases. This is because the
need grows by more than the benefit entitlement.
The effect on children’s wellbeing depends on how resources are
allocated, and whether resources other than benefits are deployed. In
one scenario, non-working families spend exactly what they receive in
benefits, and allocate them evenly in proportion to each category of
family need. In this case, we could say that a couple with four children
is in a somewhat better position than a couple with one child, because
benefits allow them to provide for just over 60 per cent of the
minimum needs of their family, rather than for just over 50 per cent
(although having four children in hardship can be seen as tougher than
having one child, even if the hardship level for each is slightly less).
In reality, however, most parents would do everything in their power
to avoid their children having to grow up so far below a minimum
acceptable standard of living. If, instead, they make sacrifices in
meeting their own needs, run up debts, use up savings or obtain help
from family, friends or a former partner, they will potentially find it
harder to meet the needs of more, rather than fewer, children. This is
because the amount available from such sources may stay the same
regardless of the number of children, but the absolute amount that
the family is short of covering minimum requirements is greater in a
larger family.
46 The state’s contribution
Figure 1
Cumulative costs and benefit entitlement, non-working families,
2012
700
600
500
400
Couple
Fourth child £78.28
Third child £84.60
Second child £80.88
Fourth child £64.99
£
First child £89.04
300
Third child £64.99
200
First child £82.39
Couple £282.62
100
Couple £111.45
0
Minimum outgoings (net of rent,
childcare and council tax)
500
Out-of-work benefits
Single adult
450
400
Third child £95.09
350
300
£
Third child £64.99
250
First child £100.40
200
150
100
First child £82.39
Single adult £178.25
50
Single adult £71.00
0
Minimum outgoings (net of rent,
childcare and council tax)
Out-of-work benefits
Figure 2
Adequacy of out-of-work benefits for couple families
500
Benefits
400
Shortfall
300
200
£
100
0
No children
–£171.17
One child
–£177.82
Two children
–£193.71
Three children
–£213.32
Four children
–£226.60
–100
–200
–300
Combined bars show minimum spending requirements, net of rent, childcare and council tax
In-work support
Under the present tax credits system and the future universal credit
system, the state makes substantial contributions to the cost of a child.
The greater part of this contribution is means-tested and, from 2013,
no support for children will be given irrespective of a family’s means.
Consider first a family on very low wages, but working at least the
number of hours required to trigger in-work support: 16 hours for a
lone parent and a combined 24 hours for a couple. If family income
remains below the threshold at which support begins to be meanstested (the ‘disregard’ level), the family will receive at least as much
for an additional child as if it was on out-of-work benefits – the full
child tax credit plus child benefit. In addition, the arrival of the first
child may trigger an increase in housing benefit (by more than any
increase in rent) and in working tax credit. The amount of income
disregarded in calculating housing benefit and council tax benefit
rises with each child, so on a given income a family on low pay could
be getting its full rent reimbursed if it has more children, but has to
cover some of its rental costs if it has fewer children. In the case of
working tax credit, a single person without children receives a lower
rate than other family types, so a lone parent gets substantially more
(at present an additional £37.45 a week) as a result of having children.
All this makes it theoretically possible for the lowest paid families, in
certain circumstances, to receive additional in-work benefits for a child
that exceed the minimum additional cost of that child. For example, a
lone parent with one child, working 20 hours a week on the minimum
wage would currently earn £121.60 a week and get £37.45 more in
working tax credit than a single person on the same wage, receive
£38.76 more in housing benefit and council tax benefit and, in
addition, receive the full child tax credit and child benefit amounts
shown in Figure 1 on page 47. This means that the lone parent with
one child would have £158.60 extra to cover the cost of a child whose
additional cost is around £115 to £120 a week depending on age
(including the family contribution to the cost of childcare for a
younger child). However, this is as much as anything a reflection of
the very limited support of a working single person without a child –
including minimal help with housing costs.
Furthermore, it is important to note that such cases arise only for the
lowest paid adults whose inadequate earnings would leave them well
short of what they need, whether or not they have children – even
with the help of benefits. Once earnings rise above this basic level, inwork benefits fall off sharply. It is hard to generalise about the extent
of state support across many different circumstances of in-work
families. However, as shown in the scorecard on page 9, benefits tend
to cover a greater proportion of additional children’s costs for lowpaid lone parents than for couples with children. This reflects the fact
that a single person on low pay starts much further below the level
that meets her/his needs than a couple. Even with in-work support, a
48 The state’s contribution
lone parent needs considerably higher wages than a two-earner
couple in order to reach a minimum acceptable standard of living.1
While means-tested support for children is withdrawn rapidly with
rising income, the size of this support, especially for families requiring
childcare, is large enough for some families on close to average
earnings to still receive it. However, since 2012, the point at which
child tax credit disappears completely has been lowered. This means
that more families on middle incomes than in the past receive only
child benefit from the state. This is worth £20.30 a week for the first
child, which represents between 17 per cent and 29 per cent of the
basic additional cost of the first child, but as little as 8 per cent for a
young child including childcare. For additional children, child benefit
is worth only £13.40, and this provides 13–23 per cent of the basic
additional cost of a second child, but as little as 6 per cent when
including full childcare costs.
From 2013, for the first time since 1946 when Beveridge’s family
allowances were introduced, some families in the UK will foot the entire
financial cost of bringing up their children, with no direct help from
the state. Any family with someone earning over £60,000 a year will
receive no child benefit or other payment to help with children’s costs.
Notes
1
Seven
Change over time
This report establishes benchmarks of children’s costs and the
contribution of the state in supporting them, which can be monitored
over time in the future. We have not been able to look in detail at the
history of such costs and of benefits. However, we do know that the
minimum cost of children has been rising faster than the Consumer
Prices Index (CPI) in recent years, for several reasons:
◆
The prices of some essential items such as food, water and
domestic fuel, which comprise a larger part of an essential basket
of goods and services than the average basket on which inflation
indices are based, have risen relatively rapidly. Analysis of this
effect suggests that the cost of a constant minimum basket has
risen by over 10 per cent relative to the CPI in the past decade.1
◆
Childcare has risen particularly rapidly in price: since 2008, by
about 30 per cent outside London and 50 per cent inside London,
compared with 14 per cent CPI inflation.
◆
In 2012, a reanalysis of the minimum basket of goods and services
first carried out in 2008 by the minimum income standard project
found that changing requirements have increased the cost of
children since that time. Although some minimum costs, related to
social participation, are being specified at a more modest level than
in 2008, transport costs have risen sharply. This is because parents
now agree that a car is essential for a family with children, since
public transport has become insufficiently flexible and accessible to
meet families’ minimum requirements.2 This has had a particularly
large effect on the additional cost of the first child in the family,
whose arrival triggers the need to run a car.
The amount the state gives a family to help meet additional costs of
children has also been changing. Over the past 15 years, there has
been a step change in such support for families on a low income,
introduced with the advent of the tax credit system, reinforced by
some increases in child tax credit at the end of last decade, and to be
carried through to a large extent into the universal credit system. In
1997, for example, an out–of-work family with two children aged
under 11 received £64.65 a week in children’s benefits; now they
receive £147.38. Even correcting for inflation (using the ‘Rossi’ index,
the standard inflation measure for considering the value of household
incomes net of housing costs), this is a 53 per cent increase. Real
household incomes have risen by only half this amount over the same
period. We can thus say with some confidence that the present
situation where most of a child’s additional costs are paid for by the
benefits system is relatively favourable in historic terms. This is due to
the effort to allocate resources into reducing child poverty.
More recently, however, there have been reductions as well as
increases in the generosity of transfers to families with children.
Above-inflation increases in child tax credit were continued until 2011.
50 Change over time
On the other hand, child benefit has been frozen in real terms. For
families in work, tax credit entitlement fell in 2011 as a result of a
steeper ‘income taper’ (the amount of tax credit withdrawn for each
additional pound earned) and the lowering of the proportion of
childcare fees eligible for support, from 80 per cent to 70 per cent.
What has been the net effect of higher costs and changes in
entitlement on the adequacy of children’s benefits since 2008, when
the minimum income standard level was first calculated? Taking the
measure shown in the scorecard on page 9, we estimate that benefits
then provided a similar proportion of children’s costs for couples as
today, but a higher proportion of lone parents’ costs. The deterioration
for lone parents is attributable to the greater relative burden of
covering the cost of a car in a smaller family, combined with more
limited savings in adult leisure budgets. Specifically:
◆
In 2008, the benefits system provided about 86 per cent and 84 per
cent of the additional cost of two children in couple and lone-parent
families, respectively. Today it covers 87 per cent and 78 per cent.
◆
Had children’s costs only risen by the CPI, the present system
would be more generous, providing 91 per cent and 89 per cent
respectively, because overall, benefits have risen faster than the CPI.
◆
In fact, the increases in benefits intended to cut child poverty were
just enough to compensate for the relatively high inflation rate of a
‘minimum’ basket. Had the contents of this basket remained
unchanged, the percentage of children’s needs covered by benefits
would have remained the same.
◆
Hence, the main overall change in the adequacy of benefits in the
period 2008 to 2012 arose from a net increase in the value of
necessities required by lone-parent families. For them, benefits now
provide only 78 per cent rather than 84 per cent of a larger ‘basket’.
Notes
1
2
D Hirsch, A Minimum Income Standard for the UK in 2011, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2011
Change over time 51
Eight
Conclusion
Bringing up children has never been cheap. A large part of the cost
has always been covered by parents, who accept that their resources
are likely to be most stretched during the period of life when they
have children. However, there are several reasons why, in 2012, an
appreciation of the cost of a child is particularly important.
First, we could potentially be at a significant turning point in the
history of child poverty and related policies. Between the 1970s and
the 1990s, there was a fundamental change in the distribution of
poverty in Britain, from a phenomenon most commonly affecting
pensioners to one where children were most at risk. Subsequently, a
combination of improved employment rates for parents and substantial
additional income transfers from government helped reduce child
poverty substantially, albeit not by as much as ambitious government
targets. Today, the role of income transfers is being de-emphasised in
favour of measures to address social causes of poverty. The risk of
such a strategy is that if more children live in families with very low
incomes, unable to afford what are considered their essential needs,
they will be damaged regardless of any other type of non-financial
assistance that is given to their parents. It is thus important to monitor
the extent to which families on low incomes are helped to afford the
essentials of life as new anti-poverty strategies unfold.
Second, the changing cost of children is more important to measure
now than it may once have been, because of the important influence
it is having on families’ ability to meet children’s needs. In recent
years, increases in children’s benefits have been outstripped by rising
costs. This is partly because some essential items, such as food and
childcare, have been rising in price substantially faster than general
inflation. It is also because spending needs can change. As the
example of declining public transport and the need for cars has
shown, public service cuts as well as any cuts in income transfers can
affect whether families are able to afford the minimum.
Finally, awareness of the cost of children is particularly important as
the old social security and tax credit system is replaced by universal
credit. In setting the levels of the new credit, policy makers need to
be aware of the effect that they will have not just on headline poverty
rates but also on family incomes relative to the actual costs they face.
This report has explored what needs lie behind the considerable cost
of bringing up a child, why it is important to meet these needs and
how the cost can be measured. The indicators that it has established
will be revisited annually, to monitor how costs are changing and how
government policies are affecting the ability of families to afford them.
52 Conclusion
The main calculations
Appendix
One
The following table sets out the basis for the cost of a child calculation.
Table A1
Additional costs 2012, £ per week
1. Excluding childcare,
rent or council tax
Age last birthday
Couple
Lone parent
First child
Second child
Third child
Fourth child
First child
Second child
Third child
0
69.25
59.17
64.45
49.76
80.61
65.22
58.30
1
69.25
59.17
64.45
49.76
80.61
65.22
58.30
2
76.93
66.60
73.32
58.30
88.30
72.66
67.10
3
76.93
66.60
73.32
58.30
88.30
72.66
67.10
4
76.93
66.60
73.32
58.30
88.30
72.66
67.10
5
82.99
72.91
79.04
66.32
94.36
78.96
72.82
6
82.99
72.91
78.12
66.32
94.36
78.96
71.90
7
82.99
72.91
78.12
66.32
94.36
78.96
71.90
8
82.99
73.66
77.94
67.09
94.36
79.71
71.73
9
82.99
73.66
77.94
67.09
94.36
79.71
71.73
10
82.99
73.66
77.94
100.01
94.36
79.71
71.73
11
105.06
95.72
99.07
99.07
116.42
101.78
167.30
12
105.06
95.72
99.07
95.72
116.42
101.78
167.30
13
105.06
95.72
95.72
95.72
116.42
101.78
176.19
14
105.06
95.72
95.72
95.72
116.42
101.78
101.78
15
105.06
105.06
105.06
105.06
116.42
116.42
116.42
16
105.06
105.06
105.06
105.06
116.42
116.42
116.42
17
105.06
105.06
105.06
105.06
116.42
116.42
116.42
2. Including childcare,
rent and council tax
Age last birthday
Couple
Lone parent
First child
Second child
Third child
Fourth child
First child
Second child
Third child
0
222.21
155.24
165.41
140.59
240.54
163.59
159.26
1
222.21
155.24
165.41
140.59
240.54
163.59
159.26
2
193.17
145.27
156.88
131.73
211.51
151.32
150.66
3
193.17
145.27
156.88
131.73
211.51
151.32
150.66
4
193.17
145.27
156.88
131.73
211.51
151.32
150.66
5
160.60
112.94
123.96
101.12
178.93
118.99
117.75
6
160.60
112.94
123.04
101.12
178.93
118.99
116.83
7
160.60
112.94
123.04
101.12
178.93
118.99
116.83
8
160.60
153.31
162.49
141.51
178.93
159.37
156.28
9
160.60
153.31
162.49
141.51
178.93
159.37
156.28
10
160.60
153.31
162.49
110.14
178.93
159.37
156.28
11
182.66
175.38
183.62
183.62
201.00
181.43
103.01
12
182.66
175.38
183.62
175.38
201.00
181.43
103.01
13
182.66
175.38
175.38
175.38
201.00
181.43
107.01
14
108.24
108.24
175.38
175.38
126.58
107.01
107.01
15
108.24
108.24
108.24
108.24
126.58
126.58
126.58
16
108.24
108.24
108.24
108.24
126.58
126.58
126.58
17
108.24
108.24
108.24
108.24
126.58
126.58
126.58
Appendix One 53
Basis of the above calculations
Cost of first child at age x = cost of a family with one child aged x minus cost of adult/s in that family without children
Cost of second child at age x = cost of a family with children aged x and x+2 minus cost of a family with child age x+2
Cost of third child at age x = cost of a family with children aged x, x+3 and x+5 minus cost of a family with children aged x+3 and x+5
Cost of a fourth child at age x = cost of a family with children aged x, x+3, x+6 and x+8 minus cost of a family aged x+3, x+6 and x+8
Interpretation
The above formulae represent, say, the cost of a third child at age five as being the difference between that child living in a family
with two older siblings, and the cost of a family in which those older siblings were the only children. That is, they show in each case
the difference that the addition of the youngest child to the family has made. The age differences used are based on survey evidence
of median age differences in families of various sizes. Where an older sibling has reached age 18, her/his costs are ignored.
54 Appendix One
Appendix
Two
Equivalisation and
poverty rates
As a supplementary part of the present research, we estimated how
poverty would be distributed across different groups if equivalence
scales were guided by the relative needs of different family types as
measured by MIS. We drew from the latest available data on income
distribution, for 2009/10, and matched this with information from MIS.
First, we estimated equivalence weightings based on relative needs in
MIS. These calculations follow the additionality basis used in this report
to estimate the relative needs of different types of family member. The
calculations are shown in Table A2.1. They show needs after housing
costs (and exclude childcare). The calculations suggest that equivalence
scales underestimate considerably the relative needs of single people
and of children aged five to 14, and overestimate the relative needs of
couples and of pensioners.
These equivalisation weightings were applied to the income distribution
shown in the Family Resources Survey for the latest year for which
detailed data were available, 2009/10. This exercise looked only at the
household types covered by MIS, where the household comprises a
single person or couple plus any dependent children and no one else
– about 80 per cent of all households. For these households, we
calculated a new set of ‘equivalised’ incomes from the Family Resources
Survey, and recalculated the poverty threshold using the median of
this distribution. In doing so, we retained the official equivalence
weightings for those households (such as those containing multiple
family units) whose requirements are not covered by MIS.
As expected, the results, shown in Table A2.2, show a substantial
increase in the risk of poverty for children, and a decrease in the risk
for pensioners. Working-age adults, many of whom are parents and so
have their household incomes affected by children, also have a small
increase in poverty risk. By this estimate, child poverty could be about
800,000 more than reported. Moreover, it suggests that children
comprise one-third of individuals in poverty, rather than one-quarter
on official figures.
Appendix Two 55
56 Appendix Two
135.52
Minimum
budget after
housing costs
00£
262.10
372.79
Single pensioner
Families with children
Base: couple plus 2
Couple plus 2 – babies
313.66
455.49
367.53
Couple plus 2 – primary
Lone parent plus 2 – primary
Couple plus 2 – secondary
Lone parent plus 2 – secondary
1.40
1.74
1.20
1.56
1.10
1.46
1.06
1.42
1.00
Weighting
relative to
base case
0.52
0.79
0.63
1.00
Weighting
relative to
base case
Secondary with lone parent
Secondary with couple
Primary with lone parent
Primary with couple
Pre-school with lone parent
Pre-school with couple
Baby of lone parent
Baby of couple
Child category
0.58
1.00
0.58
1.00
Comparison with OECD
equivalence scale
(after housing costs)
Official
29%
22%
16%
Group
Children
Working-age adults
Pensioners
09%
25%
35%
Informed
by MIS
Risk of poverty (%)
2.6
8.0
3.8
Official
1.1
7.8
4.6
Informed
by MIS
Number in poverty (million)
Estimated poverty rates 2009/2010 (after housing costs)
Table A2.2
287.85
409.52
Lone parent plus 2 – pre-school
276.93
208.05
Couple pensioner
383.71
165.57
Single
Couple plus 2 – pre-school
262.10
Base: couple plus 2
Lone parent plus 2 – babies
Minimum
budget after
housing costs
00£
Single unit households
without children
Equivalisation using MIS 2011 data
Table A2.1
0.21
0.28
Secondary: 0.37
Primary:
Pre-school: 0.23
Baby:
Additional cost
per child weighted
average of couple
and lone parent
0.40 14-plus
0.20 under 14
0.20
0.20
0.20
Comparison
with OECD
equivalence
scale
Equivalence scales greatly underestimate school age,
up to 14, where they are about right
Equivalence scales slightly underestimate pre-school
Baby about right
Interpretation
Note:
These are approximations, and the results must be treated with caution. However, the evidence
presented here suggests strongly that the higher poverty rates observed for children than for other
groups in the population actually underestimate quite substantially the extent to which children are
more likely than others to live in a household whose income is low relative to its needs.
0.39
0.37
0.28
0.28
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.21
Additional cost
per child
Ditto, though partly offset by underestimating singles’ costs
Equivalence scales overestimate cost for pensioners relative to working age
Equivalence scales underestimate costs for singles relative to couples
Interpretation

Donald Hirsch, Liz Sutton and Jacqueline Beckhelling September 2012

Transcription

Similar documents

50 Cent

Presented by Jodi Pfarr

Infographic - BizSmart Singapore`s first cloud-based

Family Budget Form

Toys R US Web Ad

MAK_NST28Mac2012

A European `highlight”! - 3 days/ 2 nights in the beautiful Bavarian

Document 6422988

rehearsal dinner etiquette